This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-12-09 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As regards the chattel mortgage, it is settled that a mortgage is a mere accessory contract and its validity would depend on the validity of the loan secured by it.[43] The chattel mortgage constituted over the subject vehicle is an accessory contract to the loan obligation as embodied in the promissory note. It cannot exist as an independent contract since its consideration is the same as that of the principal contract. A principal obligation is an indispensable condition for the existence of an accessory contract.[44] Since it has been sufficiently established that there was no cause or consideration for the promissory note, it follows that the chattel mortgage has no leg to stand on. Hence, it must be extinguished and cannot have any legal effect on petitioners. | |||||